Why wouldn't Jackie say it before? Because Kyrie didn't want it out before and neither did the Celtics. Those would be her two sources on the situation. When a source gives you background information you don't immediately publish it, that's not the job.
I understand embargos in matters of, say, national security - not publish the id of a foreign double agent, not compromise troops in combat and so on. Just an example.
In cases like this, even if the original sources ask the journalists not to publish, the good practice would be to find different sources - Irving's teammates or anyone at all who wouldn't care.
If MacMullan had this information and didn't publish it because she wants to keep her perks, access to long-form interviews, etc, then one best be very skeptical of whatever she publishes - what other vital, relevant or material information is she hiding because it's not convenient for the Celtics' front-office to have it published?
Likewise, what is she publishing because it's convenient?
Of course, the last few years MacMullan has rarely published anything that is critical of the Celtics, except when it's about outgoing or soon-to-be-outgoing players/coaches. Her ratio of positive/negative is absolutely incredible. Speculative, but I don't really think she suppresses information - I think she doesn't really seek it and just acts more like a PR for Boston's FO and ownership. It's how business goes - once again, she wouldn't have all the access for her long-form pieces and interviews if she was an even remotely antagonistic journalist but it's the reason I've long stopped paying attention to her pieces.
Anyway, I find hard to believe she got this information, then embargoed it. It just defies credulity that this was never leaked by anyone during 2 years, if Irving in fact
never liked living in Boston. This feels more like "there's nothing Ainge could have done, he never liked it here" spin for the casual fan.
Jeez people are realy programmed to hate the media without reflecting.
This is uncivil, ill-mannered and tasteless. Nobody is "hating the media", or "programmed" to do anything, or lacking in reflection, be it to hate, or love, or defend at all costs, etc
Let's avoid personal attacks and stick to the issue and differentiate what is said from who says it. It's possible to disagree wrt the merits of MacMullan's work as a journalist, and vehemently, without making any personal considerations about those one disagrees with, or assign ulterior motives and reasons..